I'm getting sick of Ubuntu's seemingly random changes. I'm thinking of switching to Debian permanently. Does anyone know if there's a list of changes between the two distros somewhere? I want to know what I'm getting myself into.

I really feel that before posting questions over here, people should try their question as search query on Google. There are so many results explaining the same question as yours. Not being offensive, but I feel there are better questions to be asked here. Moreover, this question seems to be a repeat of superuser.com/questions/154333/…
–
DharmitMar 17 '11 at 16:34

@DharmitShah: The answers here are better than of that other question. Also, it was asked over 6 months before this one, so things might have changed. BTW it's ok to ask the same questions on different sites (as per SE policy).
–
TshepangMar 17 '11 at 22:19

@Tshepang: I don't mind repetitive questions being asked here (in fact I am no one to oppose that). But I feel that at times people don't spend any time Googling their queries. Anyway, I shouldn't be bothered about it. :) Just for info, googling the same query gives lots of links. :)
–
DharmitMar 18 '11 at 5:57

1

what kind of ramdom changes are you referring to?
–
PabloMar 18 '11 at 10:20

6 Answers
6

By list of changes I assume you mean major differences between the two
distributions. I know little about Ubuntu, so I'll mostly write about Debian.

Probably the main thing that distinguishes Debian from pretty much every other operating system on the planet is Debian Policy, which is what drives Debian's famous quality control. Sadly, said quality control is looking a little frayed round the edges as the number of packages in Debian's archives heads north of twenty thousand. Just check out the RC bugs for squeeze. Ubuntu doesn't have anything like this, and its releases are noticeably buggier. I've run into problems despite my extremely light use of Ubuntu.

Another thing is that when you send a bug report to Debian you will, at least some of the time, get a response, and possibly a bugfix. (In general Debian developers, given that they are volunteers with little free time, are very friendly and helpful in my experience.) With other operating systems it is mostly a black hole. I used SuSE back in the 1990s for a couple of years. They had no real bug reporting system, but there was an address that you could send feedback to, and I never got a reply in all the times I wrote there. The only reply I got from anyone connected with SuSE during the whole time that I was using it was when I wrote directly to a packager's address. From what I have heard Ubuntu/Canonical is rather similar. I imagine fully proprietary systems like Windows are worse. It is also worth noting that in community developed operating systems like Debian, developers manage packages because they are interested in them, and not infrequently, are experts in the domain area. Eg. the PostgreSQL maintainer is a PostgreSQL developer, the Linux kernel maintainers are Linux developers, and so forth. This would be relatively unusual in a non-community OS.

Debian is hard to beat on their own ground, which is, roughly, making the world's best damn operating system. Yes, I'm biased.

If I had to point to downsides it is, obviously, that packages in Debian stable can get a little dated, but as the Linux kernel and its ecosystem moves towards maturity, it is less of a big deal that it used to be. I have nightmare recollections of Netscape 4.77 locking up my machine back in the day. Using free software took more dedication then. In any case, one can get stuff from backports, which is now an official service, or backport packages oneself, which is not really difficult. Ubuntu is much more focused on keeping software current with regular 6 month releases. Obviously, this can involve compromises in quality as noted above.

Also, Debian is completely dedicated to free software, which can occasionally cause inconveniences. Eg. the Debian kernel as of the squeeze release, no longer contains non-free software. One can use a netinst installer containing the non-free bits if you need non-free stuff, but there is no full installer with non-free. In contrast, Ubuntu/Canonical, have a much more... relaxed attitude towards non-free software.

Another thing is that the expected technical level in Debian is perhaps a bit higher, so the OS holds your hand a bit less than Ubuntu does. However, the underlying system is essentially the same, so I'm not sure how much difference that really makes in practice.

I would have rather you limited the discussion to Debian and Ubuntu. The mention of SuSE should have been a passing mention.
–
TshepangMar 17 '11 at 18:09

I like the very last sentence. Once you get past the 'superficial' user-friendliness of Ubuntu, you essentially have the same system.
–
TshepangMar 17 '11 at 18:10

1

@Tshepang: Well, SuSE 6.2 (I think that was the version) was an important part of my user experience/education. It was a rather broken system, and made me appreciate the non-brokenness of Debian, which I moved to shortly afterwards. Maybe it is not strictly relevant to a comparison between Debian and Ubuntu.
–
Faheem MithaMar 17 '11 at 18:20

SuSE (dont remember which version) also sucked hard for me. I was using it only temporarily, while waiting for a pretty GUI from Debian (back when Etch wasn't released yet). Luckily Ubuntu came to the rescue, and it was far better, and it was a Debian derivative.
–
TshepangMar 17 '11 at 18:22

If you read changelogs, you will see a lot of collaboration between Debian and Ubuntu. Here is a workflow of the exchanges:

Security fixes not shown as they are everywhere except testing.

The biggest difference between those siamese twins is how does a package leaves the unstable/beta state to join the releasable. In one case it is just time, in the other it is some form of quality assessment.

Personally, I choose Debian testing because it has some form of stability (not being unstable for at least 10 days) with no specific patch day in the year (only once every two years). In my point of view, Debian testing is even more stable than an biannual Ubuntu (not LTS).

For other person which ask for advise, I say "Ubuntu", for the sake of simplicity, people love to reinstall, I don't.

The most visible one to me is that Ubuntu treats sudo with greater regard than Debian. During Debian installation, the default option is to set up root password, as opposed to Ubuntu installation.

Ubuntu GNOME desktop is more polished than Debian's. Ubuntu's high regard for sudo is visible here too. For example, even though you specify you don't want to set root password on Debian, the desktop is still going to ask you to use it, instead of asking for sudo password.

The Ubuntu installer is far prettier. It's also more demanding of the hardware. It's only a bit easier to use though (Debian's is quite easy to use as it is).

It's much easier to run a 3D desktop (Compiz) on Ubuntu than on Debian. It is just a few clicks away, while in the case of Debian, you actually have to use the command line.

YMMV, but many have claimed that Debian is more stable. I can attest to that, although I haven't actually checked recently.

Debian is more conservative regarding system-wide technical changes, partly because it takes much more co-ordination to get things done. That's likely because it lacks a real Dictator (Benevolent or not).

When using the 'Expert Install' option for Debian, you are asked if you want to set a password for the root user or not. If you do not set a root password then it is very similar to what Ubuntu does.
–
ArrowmasterMar 17 '11 at 21:00

Linux was already established as an
enterprise server platform in 2004.
But free software was still not a part
of everyday life for most computer
users. That's why Mark Shuttleworth
gathered a small team of developers
from one of the most established Linux
projects – Debian - and set out to
create an easy-to-use Linux desktop,
Ubuntu. The vision for Ubuntu is part
social and part economic: free
software, available free of charge to
everybody on the same terms, and
funded through a portfolio of services
provided by Canonical.

So, differences are thousands, but in the core, we're talking about a strong distro as debian is, with a well defined methodology and rules to say: ok, now it's "stable"; and an easy-to-use desktop system, with defined time to release a system with mostly new and untested software.

If you're a common desktop user, then you'll love ubuntu. Debian isn't built to be a newbie-friendly system, or something like that... say it's power-user-friendly. But maybe you don't like Ubuntu, nor debian, then try OpenSUSE (Learn YaST).

BUT: If you're a relatively advanced Linux User, try Debian. It's better than Ubuntu for experienced users, and i'd never found it "hard" to use.

That other systems are easier to use than Debian doesn't necessarily mean Debian isn't yet user-oriented (or even newbie-oriented, if that's what you meant).
–
TshepangMar 17 '11 at 13:38

1

As enjoyable as I find the expression "experimented users" to be, I feel obligated to let you know, or to remind you, that the correct wording would be "experienced users".
–
intuitedMar 17 '11 at 13:40

I used to run Debian, but got sick of waiting years for e.g. Firefoxiceweasel icecat to be updated to a modern version. Although security and some bug fix updates will go out between distro releases, generally you'll have to wait for a new distro release to go from, say, FF 3.5.12 to FF 4.2. Fortunately, Debian releases have been more frequent of late, but there is still more delay and uncertainty than with Ubuntu's steady 6-month release cycle.

Of course, the benefit of Debian's patient release philosophy is that the result is more secure and stable. IMHO this is a large part of the reason that it is the upstream distro for a number of others, including Ubuntu. However, if you're not running a server or otherwise in a security-critical environment, and/or need/want to have fairly recent versions of apps installed, then Debian may not be the best choice.

There's also the option to run the unstable version of Debian, which will also give you more recent apps. I am not sure how this compares in quality to running Ubuntu; I would guess that Ubuntu falls somewhere between Debian stable and unstable in terms of security and stability.

Testing and Unstable are pretty much stable, and some claim more stable than other so-called Stable releases (e.g. Ubuntu's releases). I'm not knocking on Ubuntu, but that's what the ppl sez.
–
TshepangMar 17 '11 at 14:52

I think that this article explains some stuff. In short: different installers, no proprietary software and no impressive GUI settings in Debian by default, Debian's major updates can last for years (this is for good IMHO), Unstable, Testing, and Stable repositories -- you choose what to favor (security vs latest versions of applications)...